Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description does add genuine impact context with 'Changes production authentication trust,' which tells the agent this is high-blast-radius. However it says nothing about reversibility, propagation delay, or auth/permission needs, so it goes only modestly beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the operation is stated first and the risk warning second, which is the right ordering. Brevity borders on under-specification for a 10-parameter destructive tool, but nothing written is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive production-affecting mutation with 10 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description omits the information an agent most needs: what the required identifiers are, what settings accepts, and how approval_id/beon_* flow works. The impact warning is valuable but insufficient to close the gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It loosely maps 'SAML metadata' to settings.metadata_url and 'domain mappings' to settings.domains, but says nothing about project_ref, provider_id, approval_id, or the seven beon_* context parameters, several of which are cryptic.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Update' plus 'SAML metadata or domain mappings' identifies a specific mutation on an existing SSO provider, which is enough to separate it from supabase_create_sso_provider, supabase_delete_sso_provider, and supabase_get_sso_provider. It never names the resource as an SSO provider or names a sibling, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. that the provider must already exist, or how approval_id/beon_* identifiers relate to a call), and no pointer to alternatives. The only steer the agent gets is the verb 'Update', which implies an existing entity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.